Conroe debunked

[Donnie27]

Here's the post from the guy who worked on ScienceMark, quoted by someone at XS:

Speaking to the OP, I love how having a blog can suddenly add enormous weight to your uninformed opinion...

You got that right!

 

[DejaWiz]

If you wish to compare it to AMD's 65nm offerings your going to have to wait till H1 2007, as that is when AMD will start shipping 65nm products for the desktop. By this time Conroe would have gained a speed grade or 2, so this puts thing likely further in Conroes favor but we will have to see.

And I can agree that what you said might very well be a possibility, and a good one, at that.

However, I can afford to wait until both competitors have 65nm parts available for the consumer market. Something tells me that with the arrival of Conroe, all pre-existing hardware will not suddenly become obsolete and I have a strong suspicion that my current setup will last me just fine for quite some time. I really doubt that any apps and games released after Conroe debuts will require a Conroe to run.

I'm certainly not going to waste my money and get rid of a perfectly good setup for another (hopefully) perfectly good setup when I'm not even sure how the competitors later-released 65nm part will perform against it. In other words, I don't want to or need to dump a bunch of money for a Conroe setup until I know how well the competitors answer will perform.

I simply want to get the best setup I can for my money when it comes time for a substantial upgrade, and that is well over 6 month away for me (as it likely is for a lot of us here).

 

[LstBrunnenG]

However, I can afford to wait until both competitors have 65nm parts available for the consumer market. Something tells me that with the arrival of Conroe, all pre-existing hardware will not suddenly become obsolete and I have a strong suspicion that my current setup will last me just fine for quite some time. I really doubt that any apps and games released after Conroe debuts will require a Conroe to run.

Nobody's saying that.

I'm certainly not going to waste my money and get rid of a perfectly good setup for another (hopefully) perfectly good setup when I'm not even sure how the competitors later-released 65nm part will perform against it. In other words, I don't want to or need to dump a bunch of money for a Conroe setup until I know how well the competitors answer will perform.

By that logic I should have waited before buying my Northwood system, because the Hammer was just down the pipe. But I should have waited before buying a Hammer, because Prescott was coming soon. But I should have waited before buying a Prescott, because Pentium D was right around the corner. But I should have waited before buying a Pentium D, because the Athlon X2 was just about to come out. But I never should have bought an X2, because Conroe's only three months away. But when Conroe comes out, I can't buy it, because AM2 and 65 nm for AMD is coming right after.

But I digress....

 

[DejaWiz]

Nobody's saying that.

I think the intel fan!!! implication is there from many in this thread....

By that logic I should have waited before buying my Northwood system, because the Hammer was just down the pipe. But I should have waited before buying a Hammer, because Prescott was coming soon. But I should have waited before buying a Prescott, because Pentium D was right around the corner. But I should have waited before buying a Pentium D, because the Athlon X2 was just about to come out. But I never should have bought an X2, because Conroe's only three months away. But when Conroe comes out, I can't buy it, because AM2 and 65 nm for AMD is coming right after.

But I digress....

No, by that logic I mean I have set a specific time frame to possibly upgrade my system....tax return time next year. And with that tax return I will get the most for my money.

I know exactly what you mean, however. Perpetual waiting is stupid, because there will always be something better out within a short proximity of time. But like I said, my current system runs perfectly fine so I know I will not need to upgrade just the cpu, motherboard, and memory shortly after Conroe is released. Hell, I might not even need to upgrade my cpu, motherboard, and memory next year aside from a D3D10 gpu, depending on what is coming out software-wise at that time.

 

[Donnie27]

I think the intel fan!!! implication is there from many in this thread....

No, by that logic I mean I have set a specific time frame to possibly upgrade my system....tax return time next year. And with that tax return I will get the most for my money.

I know exactly what you mean, however. Perpetual waiting is stupid, because there will always be something better out within a short proximity of time. But like I said, my current system runs perfectly fine so I know I will not need to upgrade just the cpu, motherboard, and memory shortly after Conroe is released. Hell, I might not even need to upgrade my cpu, motherboard, and memory next year aside from a D3D10 gpu, depending on what is coming out software-wise at that time.

I needed a Gaming rig so I didn't even think twice when I built my Current 3500+ and have been happy with it after some intial troubles. I'm looking forward to replacing my old 2.6C with a Conroe/i965. Yet I find it absolutely NUTS some one would be here trying to justify spending a grand for a Processor while these babies will be selling for Half and One Third that price. That would be like when I built my Gaming Rig above, I went and bought a Pentium Extreme Edition instead of a $208 3500+.

AMD has NOTHING coming in the next year that will make buying a Conroe a bad deal=P Intel has a LOT that makes buying one of the better FX or X2's at any price a Bad deal! Folks can spin as much as they like or etc........ Prices are a Fact, not an opinion and AMD's have slightly went UP.

 

[Donnie27]

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=95021&page=37
One of the Science Mark authors has some inputs.

Another of his posts.

redpriest Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11

ScienceMark was not written to show the power of the Athlon -- ScienceMark has been around for a while, in the 1.0 incarnation and in the 2.0 incarnation; and we receive no help from either AMD or Intel in regards to the benchmark. Any software or hardware is bought out of our own pocket -- I have bought numerous Pentium 4 machines and Pentium M machines, and I imagine when Conroe becomes available for me to purchase, I will purchase a Conroe as well.

Carfax posted my reply over at Aces' (thanks Carfax for posting it here) -- Intel actually recommends using x87 in scalar situations over SSE on the Pentium 4, due to x87 adds being pipelined. 64-bit code will probably be

Conroe shines in ScienceMark because it is a *strong* architecture. Anyone seeing the benchmark results will realize that.

The writers of ScienceMark are hardware enthusiasts, just like you folks -- we love seeing how our code performs on different architectures, and if an architecture is strong in our code, we have no problem shouting it from the rooftops.

 

[DejaWiz]

I needed a Gaming rig so I didn't even think twice when I built my Current 3500+ and have been happy with it after some intial troubles. I'm looking forward to replacing my old 2.6C with a Conroe/i965. Yet I find it absolutely NUTS some one would be here trying to justify spending a grand for a Processor while these babies will be selling for Half and One Third that price. That would be like when I built my Gaming Rig above, I went and bought a Pentium Extreme Edition instead of a $208 3500+.

AMD has NOTHING coming in the next year that will make buying a Conroe a bad deal=P Intel has a LOT that makes buying one of the better FX or X2's at any price a Bad deal! Folks can spin as much as they like or etc........ Prices are a Fact, not an opinion and AMD's have slightly went UP.

I absolutely agree with you here, Donnie. I think it is ridiculous to spend $1000 on a processor when getting a better one for one-half to one-third the cost is an available option. Unfortunately, I don't have $1000 in my budget for a processor, let alone an entire upgrade. I'll be targeting around $500, tops.

As for AMD having nothing coming in the next year that will make buying a Conroe a bad choice... Well, we don't know that for sure. There may be something comparable out in Feb-Mar next year, there may not be. That's why I'm anxious for tax return time next year to arrive. I will be uprading; I just don't know what yet because noone can predict what exactly will be available in the future.

 

[LstBrunnenG]

I think the intel fan!!! implication is there from many in this thread....

The same has been said back in the Prescott/A64 days back when people were told they were idiots for building Pentium 4 systems for gaming. A64 was better for gaming, but it's not like HL2 would refuse to execute on an Intel CPU.

 

[ToastMaster]

Let me start off by saying when Conroe comes out, I almost certainly will be buying one. If not right away for the desktop, then certainly by the fall. I'm also putting off buying a MacBookPro because I want to wait till Apple uses Merom.

Now, that having been said...

I honestly don't understand how anyone here can say that AMD won't have anything comparable to Intel's performance by a good bit into 2007. Right now, we barely known what AMD's plans are for later this year besides a few roadmaps, let alone what's going to truly happen in 2007. As I see it, Conroe will probaby move to quad-core, such as Kentsfield is going to be, but that may or may not be a pandora's box for Intel. On one hand, the massive performance of Conroe from two processors, only greatly increased. On the other hand, as much as Intel may have made their line efficient now, quad cores will still come with a price premium at first. Not only that, but why is it that Intel hasn't even shown off a quad-core system yet? As many of you direct at AMD, I find it hard to believe that a product that ideally will be released by late Q4 or early Q1 '07, doesn't even have some very early samples yet that Intel can gloat about. Could it be because the shared FSB structure that Conroe still uses, could be its weak link? Remember, quad-core Conroe's won't be a true redesign, simply tacking two Conroe cores onto the same die - so similar to the current Pentium D designs in that regard.

Also, AMD has clearly stated that in 2007 you *will* see arcitecture changes. 65nm is just a die-shrink, but assuming that that is all AMD will be doing, given what some people within AMD have said, is ludicrouse. Yes, 65nm is coming, but so is K8L and whatever else AMD has planned. Remember, K8L is the name for an actual architecture change itself - we don't even know what AMD's quadcore plans are, but we know they're planning it, and given the integrated memory controller, AMD could be in a much greater position for scaling to quad-core than Intel. Atleast, that's how I see it.

needless to say, the rest of this year, and then next year, is going to be *very* interesting. And we, as gamers and users and enthusiasts (etc), are the ones who are going to benefit. Whichever "camp" you set up in.

 

[ToastMaster]

The same has been said back in the Prescott/A64 days back when people were told they were idiots for building Pentium 4 systems for gaming. A64 was better for gaming, but it's not like HL2 would refuse to execute on an Intel CPU.

Exactly.

If you look at Anand's latest benchmarks for the AM2, we'll say that we generally get a ~5% performance increase. I know, some are more like 1-2 %, others were like 8,9%, so I'm averaging it out. Now, we know that Conroe will be around a 20-30% performance difference. Thus, ultimately, anywhere from 15%-25% difference. I'm guessing when it's finally shipping, and given that AMD may have revised silicon that hasn't been able to be tested yet, let's just go with the 15% performance different. While it's true that is a rather large difference, isn't the different already that great between some of AMD's processors compared to the Pentium D series and such? That having been said, as you perfectly point out, that didn't keep people from going with Intel systems. The same will happen with AMD.

Hell, I have a X2 3800+ in my system, and I primarly play three games: WoW, DoD:S and CS:S. At my resolution (1680x1050), I am able ot fully max WoW out at 60fps, and DoD:S and CS:S at 60fps (vsync) with all but only the AA and AF maxed out (with those running at near-max themselves). So ultimately, my system now can do what I need it to do, and very well. Which is why I won't be getting Conroe at first. But it will come...

 

[Emission]

that article is far from being neutral and subjective...the bias is pretty heavy. And a lot of the points are just plain stupid. For example:



large cache is a cheap gimmick? How dare intel try to make their cpu's faster!!! give me a break. The writer is acting like the majority of computer programs are giant in size and the point of the large cache is solely to artificially inflate benchmark scores. And that is ridiculous. Fact is that the vast majority of code in the cpu is reused several times and that most programs and data are designed to fit into cache. What, does he honestly want intel to purposely create a small cache so that benchmarks don't fit into it and the cpu is slower? What he's saying is comparable to saying "the only reason a viper is fast is because they gave it a giant displacement engine, which is a cheap gimmick at the cost of price."

Or maybe the writer should look at AMD themselves who uses cache size as a differentiating feature between their low and high end cpus.

Overall I think almost all of his points are either pointless or just common sense. He makes a huge deal about how the performance of conroe trails off once a program is larger than the L2 cache. Really? Wow! Who would have thought? First he criticizes conroe for having a huge L2 cache, and then criticizes it for not performing well enough without it. I try to look at things subjectively, but in all honesty that article is pretty much just a great big giant beam of sunshine up AMD's ass.

K8 is a great architecture...no doubt about that. AMD did an amazing job with it. But intel has likewise produced a real gem with Core and this author needs to accept that instead of hiding in denial and trying to poke holes in intel's work.

I agree, it seemed that he went all out in trying to keep AMD on top. Conroe debuted on Anandtech at 2.66 GHz, not 2.4, whats up with that? I think Conroe will be a very intresting cpu, and I cant wait to get it in a 3 GHz or higher flavor

 

[savantu]

Exactly.

If you look at Anand's latest benchmarks for the AM2, we'll say that we generally get a ~5% performance increase. I know, some are more like 1-2 %, others were like 8,9%, so I'm averaging it out.

??

It's 0-2% , the one which scores 9% is a memory BW test and it is irrelevant unless you run Sandra all day long...

IMO , such a small score is too close to the error margin to average out a lead ...

 

[Sam Ontario]

I trust Intel did not mislead Conroe's performance or Intel's days are numbered!

 

[DejaWiz]

The same has been said back in the Prescott/A64 days back when people were told they were idiots for building Pentium 4 systems for gaming. A64 was better for gaming, but it's not like HL2 would refuse to execute on an Intel CPU.

Exactly my point. However, most member comments I've read seem to be stating that Conroe will own everything ever made and it will for a while, so everyone should get one as soon as it comes out. To me, anyway.

The real idiots are those that adopt a new tech right from the get go just for the sake of bragging rights and then all of a sudden we have 50 new threads a day here asking for help with their new system problems. It makes sense to me to be a little patient with new technology to get assurance that there are no problems cropping up (early Pentium FDIV problem, Soundblaster Live w/VIA chipset for AMD, Soundblaster Xfi w/nForce4 chipset anyone?). I'm not saying that I expect anything to be wrong with this new platform what-so-ever, just that I'm willing to put forth the wait. Better safe than sorry.

 

[MrGuvernment]

I trust Intel did not mislead Conroe's performance or Intel's days are numbered!

Intel will still be round if conroe fails., they are not like AMD where a bad new CPU could kill their buisness, actually i dont think AMD would go under if they made a bad cpu.

Intel makes mobo /nics / network equipment . chipsets tons! of other things.

 

[duby229]

Speaking to the OP, I love how having a blog can suddenly add enormous weight to your uninformed opinion...

Uninformed?

Dude.....

At the very least I'm actively reseaching todays, and tommorows architectures. I know more about micro architectures then at least half the people on this forum.

I said on the first post in this thread and in a subsequent post that the blog means little, it is the content of the article that has some important data. I agree that it is far too incomplete to be conclusive. But it does have some interesting data....

Firstly I didnt post the thread in this forum so dont blame me for that. I posted it in the AMD forum becouse the article was directly addressing a performance issue with an AMD system. In comparison with Conroe, but it was NOT the conroe performance that I posted this thread for.

This thread should NEVER have been moved to this forum, becouse of all the zealotry that runs rampant here. I couldnt care less about Conroe. I never posted this thread for or about Conroe. This thread was created becouse some AMD !!!!!! posted a blog comparing an AMD system with a Conroe system where the AMD system came on top. The results on both systems were obtained independantly of Intel (which is a first) AND ARE REPRODUCABLE......

I THINK THIS THREAD SHOULD BE LOCKED BECOUSE IN THIS FORUM IT WILL NEVER BE A FAIR DISCUSSION.

 

[Emission]

You might have wanted to put it in a more general forum. Just my opinion

 

[savantu]

Double pls del.

 

[savantu]

...

I honestly don't understand how anyone here can say that AMD won't have anything comparable to Intel's performance by a good bit into 2007. Right now, we barely known what AMD's plans are for later this year besides a few roadmaps, let alone what's going to truly happen in 2007.

Really ? You are a bit hmm..how should I say it : uninformed ?
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache...tm+&hl=ro&gl=ro&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a

As I see it, Conroe will probaby move to quad-core, such as Kentsfield is going to be, but that may or may not be a pandora's box for Intel. On one hand, the massive performance of Conroe from two processors, only greatly increased. On the other hand, as much as Intel may have made their line efficient now, quad cores will still come with a price premium at first. Not only that, but why is it that Intel hasn't even shown off a quad-core system yet? As many of you direct at AMD, I find it hard to believe that a product that ideally will be released by late Q4 or early Q1 '07, doesn't even have some very early samples yet that Intel can gloat about.

What are you talking about ? Intel demoed Kentsfield and Cloverton last month at IDF , even ran Cinebench on it...

Could it be because the shared FSB structure that Conroe still uses, could be its weak link? Remember, quad-core Conroe's won't be a true redesign, simply tacking two Conroe cores onto the same die - so similar to the current Pentium D designs in that regard.

That is the cheapest and most effective way to build multicore cpus with exceptional benefits in terms of yields and thermals.

Also, AMD has clearly stated that in 2007 you *will* see arcitecture changes. 65nm is just a die-shrink, but assuming that that is all AMD will be doing, given what some people within AMD have said, is ludicrouse. Yes, 65nm is coming, but so is K8L and whatever else AMD has planned. Remember, K8L is the name for an actual architecture change itself - we don't even know what AMD's quadcore plans are, but we know they're planning it, and given the integrated memory controller, AMD could be in a much greater position for scaling to quad-core than Intel. Atleast, that's how I see it.

First of all , AMD has somewhat played its aces , SOI , DSL , IMC,HT and they still have to close a 20-30% perf deficit against Conroe.I really doubt K8L will match Conroe's overall performance .Why ?

Because K8L was nowhere on the roadmaps until 6-8 months ago.It looks like a stopgap solution.We've had K9 and K10 cancelled and K8L was created as a quick fix.And a quick fix , it's only that : a bandaid solution.

It is rumored that K8L has 50% more FPU power which will probably translate into 10-30% more real world performance in FP intensive apps.Conroe OTOH has formidable FPU and SSE units , much more capable than that of K8.Maybe K8L will match Conroe in x87 but no way in SSEx.

Also , AMD doesn't have experience with large dies , even on 65nm a quad core could be well over 200mm^2 which greatly impacts yields whereas Intel will simply combine 2 Woodcrest dies ( until Whitefield arrives )

 

[savantu]

Uninformed?

Dude.....

At the very least I'm actively reseaching todays, and tommorows architectures. I know more about micro architectures then at least half the people on this forum.

You know squat about computers and IMO , you're nothing but a troll with too much time to spare.

This thread should NEVER have been moved to this forum, becouse of all the zealotry that runs rampant here. I couldnt care less about Conroe. I never posted this thread for or about Conroe. This thread was created becouse some AMD !!!!!! posted a blog comparing an AMD system with a Conroe system where the AMD system came on top. The results on both systems were obtained independantly of Intel (which is a first) AND ARE REPRODUCABLE......

Dear troll , one of the authors of Sciencemark said the following about that other idiot's Blog

Conroe's score is amazing.

Keep in mind that he ( Victor Wang of Xtremesystems ) tested both the Pentium-M optimized binary and the Pentium 4 binary. Out of both binaries, the Pentium 4 was faster. This is compiled with Intel's latest *publicly* available compiler.

Conroe is more similar to the Pentium-M than to the Pentium 4, but the binary doesn't utilize Conroe's wider resources. In *scalar* code, x87 code is generated by the Pentium 4 optimized binary because the Pentium 4 can't execute pipelined scalar sse adds, but can in x87 mode. (I had thought this was not the case but Intel's optimization guide says this is the case, I'm not sure if I 100% believe that, but given that x87 code was generated with the most aggressive flags possible -- sse/sse2 code was used sparingly in with some of the x87 code).

I imagine that if you ran the 64-bit binary Conroe's lead would widen even more.

What I am perplexed about is why Conroe bombs on the encryption code -- the entire instruction mix consists of BSWAP, XOR, and various MOV instructions, none of which are micro-coded on other processors, and no jump instructions. With Conroe's wide integer resources, I don't see why this is the case. I'm guessing there is an address generation limitation, but since I don't have a Conroe I can't really test that theory. It's a blind guess.

In any case, I see this as a *strong* showing for Conroe, not a weak one as the blogger claims. In the benchmarks that matter (BLAS, MolDyn, Primordia) Conroe is at least equal to if not exceeding an Athlon at the same clock speed. The fact that in 32-bit mode, an Athlon64 clocked 400 mhz higher cannot exceed Conroe's performance gap is telling.

I can't wait for a 64-bit run....

 

[Donnie27]

I absolutely agree with you here, Donnie. I think it is ridiculous to spend $1000 on a processor when getting a better one for one-half to one-third the cost is an available option. Unfortunately, I don't have $1000 in my budget for a processor, let alone an entire upgrade. I'll be targeting around $500, tops.

As for AMD having nothing coming in the next year that will make buying a Conroe a bad choice... Well, we don't know that for sure. There may be something comparable out in Feb-Mar next year, there may not be. That's why I'm anxious for tax return time next year to arrive. I will be uprading; I just don't know what yet because noone can predict what exactly will be available in the future.

To: You and Toastmaster.

When I said they'd have nothing I meant DEAL WISE! Even if AMD made up the Performance Gap (If it stands up) there 's NO WAY in hell, AMD will be able to match Intel prices IMHO!

So even If AMD could over take Intel with something like a 65nm K8L at 3.4GHz for example, who'd pay $1200 for it? The First round of Intel Conroes don't have an overpriced "Excuse for high price" model like the Extreme Expensive Models, yet! So if AMD could queeze say 7% more performance than 2.66GHz in Feb or March, do they price it 7% more or 47% more? That's what I mean by "Deal"! Whatever AMD ships has to be 20% faster than the 2.8GHz FX-62. Honestly, are we supposed to believe it will sale for the MSRP of $569 Retail like 2.66GHz Conroe? Itself surpasssed by at least 3GHz and the rumored 3.33GHz?

Now that's why I said all Conroe had to do was MATCH AMD. At it projected price points, and AMD having to pay back over 2 Billion in loans, they'll have NOTHING to fight Intel with=P Buying anything from Intel or AMD is a bad deal right now. Intel cuts prices on the 23rd and no matter what AMD is saying now, they'll have to match them. They'll have to match Intel again 6 weeks after Conroe when Intel normally cuts prices again after new products.

With all of the doubt about i975 and Conroe, that's a bad deal buying it if you plan on upgrading to Conroe, might as well wait for i965. I buy Intel and AMD products but I'm NOT giving either extra money for the sake of Love or Fansupport! I don't see AMD out doing Intel until K10 ships! These will NOT be cheaper either. It's not predicting the future, it having an understanding of the Pass! The Gemans and the EU didn't give AMD Fab 30 or 36, thought they tried LOL! AMD owes almost 1.9 billion for sure.

 

[(cf)Eclipse]

Intel will still be round if conroe fails., they are not like AMD where a bad new CPU could kill their buisness, actually i dont think AMD would go under if they made a bad cpu.

Intel makes mobo /nics / network equipment . chipsets tons! of other things.

amusing you say that, cause AMD makes a lot more than just CPUs
just a reality check

 

[savantu]

amusing you say that, cause AMD makes a lot more than just CPUs
just a reality check

Really ? What ?

 

[Emission]

They make server chipsets too I believe, not much else that I know of though

 

[GilmourD]

Really ? What ?

Flash memory, half the ICs used in cell phones, uh... Hmmm If you go www.amd.com, look at the lower left column and all your questions will be answered. AMD doesn't make its money on processors, which is possibly why they gear them so much towards enthusiasts rather than just making bland mundane products.

 

[(cf)Eclipse]

don't forget things like the Geode too

their memory division has kinda split off, iirc, into a company called spansion

also, once fab36 settles down, it's most likely that amd will start making their own chipsets again, though i think nvidia's will still be choice

 

[Donnie27]

.............. needless to say, the rest of this year, and then next year, is going to be *very* interesting. And we, as gamers and users and enthusiasts (etc), are the ones who are going to benefit. Whichever "camp" you set up in.

Sure it will be, true competition is a Two-way street. Just because we're enthusiasts, doesn't mean Intel, AMD and the rest have right to ask for down right rip off prices.

 

[Donnie27]

amusing you say that, cause AMD makes a lot more than just CPUs
just a reality check

Yes they do but so does Intel. Now if we could only brag about AMD's Chipset department

I'd bet AMD would love to have any of the last 3 so called down years Intel just had, what do you think? Let's see, we have Intel whinning about making 2.6 billion instead 2.8 or 2.9 in profits, what did AMD make? Intel's FABs are paid for and they're paying NO sub contractors for Fab space.

 

[(cf)Eclipse]

Yes they do but so does Intel. Now if we could only brag about AMD's Chipset department

i never said they didn't. the post i quoted implied that AMD only made CPUs

 

[MrGuvernment]

amusing you say that, cause AMD makes a lot more than just CPUs
just a reality check

i was refering more to the original poster claim - AMD has it's fingers in alot too which is why neither would go out of buisness if they made a bad cpu.

 

[(cf)Eclipse]

i was refering more to the original poster claim - AMD has it's fingers in alot too which is why neither would go out of buisness if they made a bad cpu.

ah, i misread what you intended to say then. my bad

 

[Scali]

AMD might not go out of business, but a 'bad' CPU design would mean they'd be out of the CPU-market for a few years, until they can finance a new design again. Or perhaps they'd be out forever, because even now, when CPUs are their biggest product, and their CPUs are very competitive, they are struggling to get a new design underway.

 

[savantu]

AMD does only CPU , either MPU or for cellulars , no flash and no chipsets ( 8111 is bye bye by now )

 

[Donnie27]

i never said they didn't. the post i quoted implied that AMD only made CPUs

My "" was meant for AMD not having a Chipset Department, not at you

 

[DejaWiz]

To: You and Toastmaster.

When I said they'd have nothing I meant DEAL WISE! Even if AMD made up the Performance Gap (If it stands up) there 's NO WAY in hell, AMD will be able to match Intel prices IMHO!

So even If AMD could over take Intel with something like a 65nm K8L at 3.4GHz for example, who'd pay $1200 for it? The First round of Intel Conroes don't have an overpriced "Excuse for high price" model like the Extreme Expensive Models, yet! So if AMD could queeze say 7% more performance than 2.66GHz in Feb or March, do they price it 7% more or 47% more? That's what I mean by "Deal"! Whatever AMD ships has to be 20% faster than the 2.8GHz FX-62. Honestly, are we supposed to believe it will sale for the MSRP of $569 Retail like 2.66GHz Conroe? Itself surpasssed by at least 3GHz and the rumored 3.33GHz?

Now that's why I said all Conroe had to do was MATCH AMD. At it projected price points, and AMD having to pay back over 2 Billion in loans, they'll have NOTHING to fight Intel with=P Buying anything from Intel or AMD is a bad deal right now. Intel cuts prices on the 23rd and no matter what AMD is saying now, they'll have to match them. They'll have to match Intel again 6 weeks after Conroe when Intel normally cuts prices again after new products.

With all of the doubt about i975 and Conroe, that's a bad deal buying it if you plan on upgrading to Conroe, might as well wait for i965. I buy Intel and AMD products but I'm NOT giving either extra money for the sake of Love or Fansupport! I don't see AMD out doing Intel until K10 ships! These will NOT be cheaper either. It's not predicting the future, it having an understanding of the Pass! The Gemans and the EU didn't give AMD Fab 30 or 36, thought they tried LOL! AMD owes almost 1.9 billion for sure.

Well, let's look at this in current tense, since Conroe isn't available yet.

AMD X2 3800+ is about $295 avg price today. In all the results from tests performed by independent reviewers, this particular AMD chip can even beat out intels currently available top-of-the-line EE dual core chip (not to mention runs cooler and draws a lot less power). So from looking at the other side of the economic coin, spending $300 on an X2 3800+ is better than spending $1000+ on the intel EE for similar performance.

However, like you've repeatedly said and I repeatedly agree, this will surely be the inverse when Conroe is released. Spending $300 on a cpu that can outdo AMD's $1000+ top-of-the-line would be a very wise choice indeed!.

Then again, when Feb-Apr of next year arrives, I will get to compare and choose between either intel's or AMD's 65nm offerings. We don't know how future prices, availability, and comparable performance will be from either company yet. But like I said earlier, I may only have to upgrade my GPU(s) to see a decent performance gain in games.

 

[drizzt81]

I just love it when people argue over stuff that is not out yet and that their future, bigger brother will beat up the future big brother of the other side.

 

[DejaWiz]

I just love it when people argue over stuff that is not out yet and that their future, bigger brother will beat up the future big brother of the other side.

Doncha, though?

 

[Donnie27]

Well, let's look at this in current tense, since Conroe isn't available yet.

AMD X2 3800+ is about $295 avg price today. In all the results from tests performed by independent reviewers, this particular AMD chip can even beat out intels currently available top-of-the-line EE dual core chip (not to mention runs cooler and draws a lot less power). So from looking at the other side of the economic coin, spending $300 on an X2 3800+ is better than spending $1000+ on the intel EE for similar performance.

However, like you've repeatedly said and I repeatedly agree, this will surely be the inverse when Conroe is released. Spending $300 on a cpu that can outdo AMD's $1000+ top-of-the-line would be a very wise choice indeed!.

Then again, when Feb-Apr of next year arrives, I will get to compare and choose between either intel's or AMD's 65nm offerings. We don't know how future prices and availability will be from either company. But like I said earlier, I may only have to upgrade my GPU(s) to see a decent performance gain in games.

What reviews are you reading? Now I gave a link to OC guys running 920 vs 3800+

http://www.overclockers.com.au/artic...?id=452447&P=1

For dual core entry-level products we see the situation like this: The X2 3800+ runs faster in gaming than a Pentium D 920. In applications both processors run neck-to-neck with a slight advantage for the 3800+. On the other hand a Pentium D 920 is between 15% and 20% cheaper and overclocks clearly better: We achieved with air-cooling a 45% frequency increase and believe that 40% (or around 3900 MHz) are achievable with almost every air-cooled 920. Overclocked to its maximum stable frequency we found the 920 outrunning a maxed out X2 3800+ in almost all benchmarks.

What's the difference between his and Anand and others, they used RAM that was set to 3-2-2-8, NOT 4-4-4-15.

You might have confused the newest 9xx series processors with the old 8xx or read too many BIASED sites. I've also repeated said I've never buy and EE of any kind, Intel's or AMD's. IMHO it BOGUS of them to think we have money to burn. Now sure there an occational app were 3800+ might win but that's not going to happen that often. I wish [H] would have done this review long ago and then again when the newest stepping launched.

Here's AMD road maps

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=1702

 

[sparks]

BUT no matter what either company does there is always the fan boys that will say no way.
IF the conroe did 4 times the frame rates in the best game at half the wattage...THEY would say oh yea well my AMD can make soup.
same with AMD kicking the hell out of Intel.

and a lot of fan boys are either paid by the co's or just wish they were.

IF conroe wins hands down...the am2 aint nothing and lots of people say that but that just tells AMD to get off their arse and do something better..

sparks

 

[Donnie27]

Oh, the Price was given and just as the last 5 times it was given, the prices followed were dead on. You have to find something better than we don't know.